"It is a matter of serious concern that the chief of the defence staff has today intervened directly in issues of political dispute. It is essential in a democracy that the military remains political neutral at all times," Mr Corbyn said.
"By publicly taking sides in current political arguments, Sir Nicholas Houghton has clearly breached that constitutional principle. Accordingly, I am writing to the defence secretary to ask him to take action to ensure that the neutrality of the armed forces is upheld."
The General ought to have been more guarded in his comments, but it would be odd if the CDS didn't have a view on the implications of Corbyn's policies. But convention is convention, and that is to remain silent.
Agreed, a stance ALL public servants should adopt about ALL parties.
If Corbyn would not authorise the use of Trident, then would he also demand that all four of the Trident fleet be kept at its base? I don't recall hearing anything on this.
Mr. Jessop, Mr. Llama, I do apologise, I somehow managed to miss both your replies to me on the previous thread.
Another Kickstarter perhaps worth considering is Kingdom Come: Deliverance. Think of Elder Scrolls, but set in the real world, in a condensed but generally realistic map of Bohemia several hundred years ago. The layered armour system appears the best since Dragon's Dogma, and although the release has been pushed back (2016 for consoles, I think) it looks intriguing.
Mr. Llama, I share you dislike of canine demise in videogames (I never had a Dawnguard husky as a companion for that reason), but Dogmeat [and other companions] cannot die in combat. They can, I think, get temporarily wounded and put out of the fight for a little while, but they can't actually get killed in combat.
I don't understand this don't-kill-pets meme, especially in books and games where innocent humans die.
As I've said in the past, I dabble unprofessionally with writing. In one series, a cat is a minor character: she is the main character's pet (called Kaplan, which is Turkish for Tiger). In the third book, I fully intend to kill the cat off as a plot device. Worse, it is not an accidental death, but a cold-blooded murder.
Yet Mrs J says that is a really bad idea that will turn readers off. Yet she has never objected when I've killed off human characters in the past ...
ScottP .... Re war memorials.(at 2.49) Yes you usually see a great disproportion between losses. However some villages will have fewer WW1 names in proportion. This is because at the beginning of the WW1 certain groups joined up en mass from the same area into the same unit. Later we had conscription and recruits were distributed more evenly. In WW1 we were involved in a continental wide mass war for 4 solid years. We were only involved in continental warfare for about 1 year in WW2. During that time our ground losses were comparable.
...
Mr. Path, I don't think I have ever seen a local war memorial on which the number of people from WW2 was larger than the number from WW1. I suppose in theory one should exist but if there is one I should be interested to hear of it.
You second point is however well made. I shall get back on a hobbyhorse of mine and state that an infantryman in the Normandy campaign in 1944 was more likely to suffer death or wounds than an infantryman in the Somme campaign of 1916.
I seem to recall that there were only six parishes in the UK that didn't lose at least one person in the Great War.
Yes this is quite possible. As Mr Llama says it would be very unusual for a memorial to have more names for ww2 than ww1, for the reasons I outlined in my post. I was not suggesting otherwise. But it is wrong to think that it was common to see a mass slaughter of an entire 'cohort' from a community. It did happen of course with the initial recruitment of pals battalions and the very significant loss of life in their early battles. There was something similar possibly with the recruitment of workers from estates which might be part of what Mr Llama was commenting about. The ummm... Sandringham (?) battalion may be an example, which suffered heavily at Gallipoli. David Jason starred in a film about it. Our village has a booklet that can be bought that gives a brief summary of both wars and where possible lists the action and event behind every name on the memorial.
Mr. Jessop, ha, I saw a bit of a story today whining about girls being taking in by the violence of CoD (which apparently now includes women, and therefore allows them to be killed). Killing men is, of course, fine and dandy.
Also, this extends to all companions, whether, human, canine, robot or otherwise.
Your wife is wise. Killing or torturing humans is fine. But killing cats and dogs (especially) is something you need to be very careful about.
I did actually know that, as Gibbon mentions Alp Arslan (think he succeeded Toghrul Beg as an early Seljuk Sultan). It's a good spot of info to know. Didn't know about Kaplan, though.
ScottP .... Re war memorials.(at 2.49) Yes you usually see a great disproportion between losses. However some villages will have fewer WW1 names in proportion. This is because at the beginning of the WW1 certain groups joined up en mass from the same area into the same unit. Later we had conscription and recruits were distributed more evenly. In WW1 we were involved in a continental wide mass war for 4 solid years. We were only involved in continental warfare for about 1 year in WW2. During that time our ground losses were comparable.
...
Mr. Path, I don't think I have ever seen a local war memorial on which the number of people from WW2 was larger than the number from WW1. I suppose in theory one should exist but if there is one I should be interested to hear of it.
You second point is however well made. I shall get back on a hobbyhorse of mine and state that an infantryman in the Normandy campaign in 1944 was more likely to suffer death or wounds than an infantryman in the Somme campaign of 1916.
Afternoon Hurst. I am reading a very interesting book at the moment, "Mountain and Flood", the story of the 52 Lowland Division in WWII. My father was in the 4th /5th Royal Scots Fusiliers as part of it. They spent 3 years in the mountains of Scotland training for mountain warfare. In the end they hardly got above 100 feet. An incredible story.
Good Afternoon, Mr. G., I really do wish you hadn't told me about that book. Now my reading list has gone up by one and is already long enough to challenge my abilities to get through in my lifetime.
I always thought of the 52nd as an airborne formation that was never used in the role but I supposed they must have done something before that. Didn't they fight with the Canadians in the Scheldt estuary? Actually, from a distant memory stirring, that might be better expressed as fight against the Canadians in the Scheldt estuary.
Hurst, you are correct, they also did some airborne training as they were to go in if initial part of Market Garden was successful, but got stood down. Believe part did Airborne and the other part did sea landings. They did fight in the Scheldt estuary and Walcheren Island with the Canadian First Army and then went onto Operation Blackcock which cleared the Roer Triangle. There were some initial disagreements between the Scots and the Canadians as you say.
O/T Very early and only partial results from Burma seem to suggest that Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy is doing well in today's elections. A landslide for the Lady?
It would make no difference. The Rohingyas will still be massacred. Her party will not stop it.
"It is a matter of serious concern that the chief of the defence staff has today intervened directly in issues of political dispute. It is essential in a democracy that the military remains political neutral at all times," Mr Corbyn said.
"By publicly taking sides in current political arguments, Sir Nicholas Houghton has clearly breached that constitutional principle. Accordingly, I am writing to the defence secretary to ask him to take action to ensure that the neutrality of the armed forces is upheld."
The General ought to have been more guarded in his comments, but it would be odd if the CDS didn't have a view on the implications of Corbyn's policies. But convention is convention, and that is to remain silent.
If a soldier was interviewed on TV and said he thought his commander's orders were wrong, he would be disciplined pdq.
On the other hand Corbyn's intent is to destroy the labour party as we know it and to use its hollowed out shell do destroy our country and all it has stood for for decades if not centuries and give succour to our enemies, the enemies of peace and democracy. Unlike some the CDS appears not to be a traitor.
What a melodrama Queen
Truly the author hates everything about Labour from 1900 onwards, and anything it achieved. I suppose the SNP are traitors also in his opinion for wanting Independence,and against replacing Trident.
I thought the SNP thought everyone who supported the union were traitors. It's not me that hates labour, its the Corbynites. I can respect people like poor Mrs Duffy, i was brought up surrounded by them. If you read what I said it was about the party within a party that is intent on taking over labour. When loony corbynites talk about the hard right and how they are going to eliminate them they are talking about Liz Kendall and the likes of Cooper.
I can not comment upon the SNP , I would be surprised if that was their position. If it does become a party within a party that is intent on taking over Labour, there would be a danger to its future. However there has always been a history of disagreement over nuclear Unilateral disarmament from the 50s to the 80s. In the 80s , I totally disagreed with unilateral disamament. However , I do believe it needs to be discussed again in 2015. The leader of the Armed Services should not involve hiself in a public party policy discussion. He can raise his views privatley to the PM or leaders of political parties.
Mr. Jessop, Mr. Llama, I do apologise, I somehow managed to miss both your replies to me on the previous thread.
Another Kickstarter perhaps worth considering is Kingdom Come: Deliverance. Think of Elder Scrolls, but set in the real world, in a condensed but generally realistic map of Bohemia several hundred years ago. The layered armour system appears the best since Dragon's Dogma, and although the release has been pushed back (2016 for consoles, I think) it looks intriguing.
Mr. Llama, I share you dislike of canine demise in videogames (I never had a Dawnguard husky as a companion for that reason), but Dogmeat [and other companions] cannot die in combat. They can, I think, get temporarily wounded and put out of the fight for a little while, but they can't actually get killed in combat.
I don't understand this don't-kill-pets meme, especially in books and games where innocent humans die.
As I've said in the past, I dabble unprofessionally with writing. In one series, a cat is a minor character: she is the main character's pet (called Kaplan, which is Turkish for Tiger). In the third book, I fully intend to kill the cat off as a plot device. Worse, it is not an accidental death, but a cold-blooded murder.
Yet Mrs J says that is a really bad idea that will turn readers off. Yet she has never objected when I've killed off human characters in the past ...
(As an aside, 'Aslan' is Turkish for Lion).
Mrs Jessop is clearly a very sensible lady. Should your book series be published I shall of course buy it but now I know the heroine is to be killed off ( a cat can never be a minor character) in the third volume I shall never read it. Killing good animals in a story is a sure fire turn off.
A great mate of mine who has made a very nice living as a script writer was some years ago working on a script for an American producer who, it turned out, was pushing the drafts out to a sort of large focus group. In the course of the story development he had a nice doggie shot by the hero. As a story device it worked; as a turn off it worked even more. He got hate mail from all over, had the internet been as developed an popular as it is now, "Don't shoot the dog" would have been a twitter sensation and, probably, my mate would never have worked again.
Murder the main human in a story and few people will bat an eyelid but murder their cat or dog and the public will not like it.
Mr. Jessop, Mr. Llama, I do apologise, I somehow managed to miss both your replies to me on the previous thread.
Another Kickstarter perhaps worth considering is Kingdom Come: Deliverance. Think of Elder Scrolls, but set in the real world, in a condensed but generally realistic map of Bohemia several hundred years ago. The layered armour system appears the best since Dragon's Dogma, and although the release has been pushed back (2016 for consoles, I think) it looks intriguing.
Mr. Llama, I share you dislike of canine demise in videogames (I never had a Dawnguard husky as a companion for that reason), but Dogmeat [and other companions] cannot die in combat. They can, I think, get temporarily wounded and put out of the fight for a little while, but they can't actually get killed in combat.
I don't understand this don't-kill-pets meme, especially in books and games where innocent humans die.
As I've said in the past, I dabble unprofessionally with writing. In one series, a cat is a minor character: she is the main character's pet (called Kaplan, which is Turkish for Tiger). In the third book, I fully intend to kill the cat off as a plot device. Worse, it is not an accidental death, but a cold-blooded murder.
Yet Mrs J says that is a really bad idea that will turn readers off. Yet she has never objected when I've killed off human characters in the past ...
(As an aside, 'Aslan' is Turkish for Lion).
Mrs Jessop is clearly a very sensible lady. Should your book series be published I shall of course buy it but now I know the heroine is to be killed off ( a cat can never be a minor character) in the third volume I shall never read it. Killing good animals in a story is a sure fire turn off.
A great mate of mine who has made a very nice living as a script writer was some years ago working on a script for an American producer who, it turned out, was pushing the drafts out to a sort of large focus group. In the course of the story development he had a nice doggie shot by the hero. As a story device it worked; as a turn off it worked even more. He got hate mail from all over, had the internet been as developed an popular as it is now, "Don't shoot the dog" would have been a twitter sensation and, probably, my mate would never have worked again.
Murder the main human in a story and few people will bat an eyelid but murder their cat or dog and the public will not like it.
It was the most ghastly thing in John Wick. They all deserved to die for killing his dog.
Maria Eagle should be sacked. The fact that she disagrees with Corbyn is a party matter. Regardless, a serving Military Officer should not comment on government or opposition policy. They should serve the government of the day.
Would it have been alright for a British General to go TV and say he did not agree with the invasion of Iraq ?
I believe senior military officers wanted a clarification on the legal aspects on the bombing of Syria [ which was voted down ]. However, that was not done in the glare of the media.
I remember in 1983 some retired generals spoke to the media. Fair enough. They were not serving then.
What happened today is very unfortunate. A line has been crossed.
Maria Eagle should be sacked. The fact that she disagrees with Corbyn is a party matter. Regardless, a serving Military Officer should not comment on government or opposition policy. They should serve the government of the day.
Would it have been alright for a British General to go TV and say he did not agree with the invasion of Iraq ?
I believe senior military officers wanted a clarification on the legal aspects on the bombing of Syria [ which was voted down ]. However, that was not done in the glare of the media.
I remember in 1983 some retired generals spoke to the media. Fair enough. They were not serving then.
What happened today is very unfortunate. A line has been crossed.
Stone me. I agree, mostly, with Surbiton. I think I need to go and lie down.
Whilst I share the general's concerns, he's a senior military man and it is not his job (or his right) to publicly make political statements.
It is 'just' a convention (though some on the left cheering the Lords voting down a finance matter may wish to reflect on this), but it's a critically important one.
I criticised Sir Iain Blair when he was a cheerleader for Labour's authoritarian bullshit, and this is a similar situation. The police and military should not be politicised.
If she isn't, what on earth could provoke a sacking in Corbyn's shadow cabinet? He's accepted some of them openly disagreeing with him, but her words go beyond that here, so if that doesn't do it, could anything?
Maria Eagle should be sacked. The fact that she disagrees with Corbyn is a party matter. Regardless, a serving Military Officer should not comment on government or opposition policy. They should serve the government of the day.
Would it have been alright for a British General to go TV and say he did not agree with the invasion of Iraq ?
I believe senior military officers wanted a clarification on the legal aspects on the bombing of Syria [ which was voted down ]. However, that was not done in the glare of the media.
I remember in 1983 some retired generals spoke to the media. Fair enough. They were not serving then.
What happened today is very unfortunate. A line has been crossed.
Yes, a line has definitely been crossed. It even led to the surreal experience of finding myself in agreement with Jeremy Corbyn, which I would willingly have sworn would never happen!
Eagle should be sacked, but she won't be for two reasons (1) Corbyn doesn't do discipline (cf Simon Danczuk) and (2) if she was sacked, who on earth would he replace her with? Practically nobody is willing to serve in the shadow cabinet as it is. Clive Lewis would have to be promoted, and given his penchant for crazy remarks, that would likely be a disaster.
Maria Eagle should be sacked. The fact that she disagrees with Corbyn is a party matter. Regardless, a serving Military Officer should not comment on government or opposition policy. They should serve the government of the day.
Would it have been alright for a British General to go TV and say he did not agree with the invasion of Iraq ?
I believe senior military officers wanted a clarification on the legal aspects on the bombing of Syria [ which was voted down ]. However, that was not done in the glare of the media.
I remember in 1983 some retired generals spoke to the media. Fair enough. They were not serving then.
What happened today is very unfortunate. A line has been crossed.
Stone me. I agree, mostly, with Surbiton. I think I need to go and lie down.
Thirded. A truly disgraceful and truly worrying intervention. Is this the same guy who said the army was likely to rebel if Corbyn got in?
Maria Eagle should be sacked. The fact that she disagrees with Corbyn is a party matter. Regardless, a serving Military Officer should not comment on government or opposition policy. They should serve the government of the day.
Would it have been alright for a British General to go TV and say he did not agree with the invasion of Iraq ?
I believe senior military officers wanted a clarification on the legal aspects on the bombing of Syria [ which was voted down ]. However, that was not done in the glare of the media.
I remember in 1983 some retired generals spoke to the media. Fair enough. They were not serving then.
What happened today is very unfortunate. A line has been crossed.
Stone me. I agree, mostly, with Surbiton. I think I need to go and lie down.
Mr Llama, my point about Maria Eagle is not about her disagreement with Corbyn. She has made that clear. In fact, I don't think anyone in the shadow cabinet agrees with Corbyn.
It is the fact that she supported a serving General to question party political policy is my point. If Labour were to end up with a compromise on having two Trident submarines and some generals criticise that, she would be in no position to deflect that as she had already sanctioned such an intervention.
The Tories have also reduced Army strength from 120000 to 84000 with perhaps more to come. Should the Army Chief publicly criticise that ? They can do cleverly by nods and winks but that is different to a full frontal attack.
Maria Eagle should be sacked. The fact that she disagrees with Corbyn is a party matter. Regardless, a serving Military Officer should not comment on government or opposition policy. They should serve the government of the day.
Would it have been alright for a British General to go TV and say he did not agree with the invasion of Iraq ?
I believe senior military officers wanted a clarification on the legal aspects on the bombing of Syria [ which was voted down ]. However, that was not done in the glare of the media.
I remember in 1983 some retired generals spoke to the media. Fair enough. They were not serving then.
What happened today is very unfortunate. A line has been crossed.
Stone me. I agree, mostly, with Surbiton. I think I need to go and lie down.
Thirded. A truly disgraceful and truly worrying intervention. Is this the same guy who said the army was likely to rebel if Corbyn got in?
I am not sure even the government would like this. They may privately think it was a good idea well before the next election to air the military view straight from the horse's mouth, but more sensible heads will not find this acceptable.
Mrs Jessop is clearly a very sensible lady. Should your book series be published I shall of course buy it but now I know the heroine is to be killed off ( a cat can never be a minor character) in the third volume I shall never read it. Killing good animals in a story is a sure fire turn off.
A great mate of mine who has made a very nice living as a script writer was some years ago working on a script for an American producer who, it turned out, was pushing the drafts out to a sort of large focus group. In the course of the story development he had a nice doggie shot by the hero. As a story device it worked; as a turn off it worked even more. He got hate mail from all over, had the internet been as developed an popular as it is now, "Don't shoot the dog" would have been a twitter sensation and, probably, my mate would never have worked again.
Murder the main human in a story and few people will bat an eyelid but murder their cat or dog and the public will not like it.
Thanks for the warnings from everyone; I shall probably have to change it. Unfortunately the cat only exists in the books (the second and third of which have not yet been written), to be killed off in the third. It's part of an escalating pattern of violence against a character, and one I either do fully or not at all.
Is it as bad if I remove the cat from the stories, and she never exists?
I must admit that I find it a strange attitude to have. A cat's death is abhorrent and will stop people reading, yet an innocent human's murder is fine. I find it hard to understand, and perhaps somewhat immoral. That might not be the best word ...
I read one book a few years ago by an American author (I *think* it was the Bones lady). In the book, she comes home to find her cat has been murdered and gutted. Yet a few chapters later her cat turned up: it was another cat that someone had found dead and gutted, and placed in her flat after taking her cat.
But how foolish is Corbyn to get involved in this spat, on remembrance Sunday? Very foolish indeed I think. And his laughable rendition of the national anthem won't have helped either.
JJ.I have had to kill off several leading characters in my books..It is quite disturbing and a sense of guilt descends...and of course they are totally fictional..still had sleepless nights tho..
If an animal has to be killed off then it is always better to do it quickly..they don't do the John Wayne thing too well..whereas with Humans... drag it out..let the bastards suffer..
JJ.I have had to kill off several leading characters in my books..It is quite disturbing and a sense of guilt descends...and of course they are totally fictional..still had sleepless nights tho..
It can be an odd experience in some ways. I've not written all that much in my time, and purely as a hobby of course, but I found it amazing how despite starting from planned points, and with end points in mind, things just flow and characters could go in directions I never intended, and how just writing from a different character's POV shaped how sympathetic I ended up being when I had not intended to be. I think there are probably stories and characters where it is essential to stay out of their heads, so you don't feel bad about making them do or say some things.
Any votes over the quota are declared surplus and go to the next preference.
Have I understood this aright? If a different set of votes were counted first in order to reach the quota, a different candidate could have been elected thanks to the second-preferences.
Something delightfully random in there!
How do they decide which votes to count first and which to count later?
Even somebody so muddle-headed as Angela would surely not have made so simple a mistake!
@runnymede don't you think that on the day when we remember the millions of men who died in defence of democracy, it is entirely appropriate to criticise somebody who, doubtless with the best of motives, has damaged a key part of it? I never thought I'd hear myself say it, but I agree with Corbyn on this and think his response, and the timing of it, is entirely appropriate.
The really stupid thing was a General making such a remark, especially on such a day.
"It is a matter of serious concern that the chief of the defence staff has today intervened directly in issues of political dispute. It is essential in a democracy that the military remains political neutral at all times," Mr Corbyn said.
"By publicly taking sides in current political arguments, Sir Nicholas Houghton has clearly breached that constitutional principle. Accordingly, I am writing to the defence secretary to ask him to take action to ensure that the neutrality of the armed forces is upheld."
The General ought to have been more guarded in his comments, but it would be odd if the CDS didn't have a view on the implications of Corbyn's policies. But convention is convention, and that is to remain silent.
If a soldier was interviewed on TV and said he thought his commander's orders were wrong, he would be disciplined pdq.
On the other hand Corbyn's intent is to destroy the labour party as we know it and to use its hollowed out shell do destroy our country and all it has stood for for decades if not centuries and give succour to our enemies, the enemies of peace and democracy. Unlike some the CDS appears not to be a traitor.
"It is a matter of serious concern that the chief of the defence staff has today intervened directly in issues of political dispute. It is essential in a democracy that the military remains political neutral at all times," Mr Corbyn said.
"By publicly taking sides in current political arguments, Sir Nicholas Houghton has clearly breached that constitutional principle. Accordingly, I am writing to the defence secretary to ask him to take action to ensure that the neutrality of the armed forces is upheld."
The General ought to have been more guarded in his comments, but it would be odd if the CDS didn't have a view on the implications of Corbyn's policies. But convention is convention, and that is to remain silent.
If a soldier was interviewed on TV and said he thought his commander's orders were wrong, he would be disciplined pdq.
On the other hand Corbyn's intent is to destroy the labour party as we know it and to use its hollowed out shell do destroy our country and all it has stood for for decades if not centuries and give succour to our enemies, the enemies of peace and democracy. Unlike some the CDS appears not to be a traitor.
But how foolish is Corbyn to get involved in this spat, on remembrance Sunday? Very foolish indeed I think. And his laughable rendition of the national anthem won't have helped either.
Remembrance Day is not the best day for the leader of the labour party to get into a row with the military, no matter what the rights or wrongs are.
Corbyn has made a mistake as this will only alert the attention of many generally politically unaware people to his defence policies and his related attitudes.
Corbyn has made a mistake as this will only alert the attention of many generally politically unaware people to his defence policies and his related attitudes.
"It is a matter of serious concern that the chief of the defence staff has today intervened directly in issues of political dispute. It is essential in a democracy that the military remains political neutral at all times," Mr Corbyn said.
"By publicly taking sides in current political arguments, Sir Nicholas Houghton has clearly breached that constitutional principle. Accordingly, I am writing to the defence secretary to ask him to take action to ensure that the neutrality of the armed forces is upheld."
The General ought to have been more guarded in his comments, but it would be odd if the CDS didn't have a view on the implications of Corbyn's policies. But convention is convention, and that is to remain silent.
If a soldier was interviewed on TV and said he thought his commander's orders were wrong, he would be disciplined pdq.
On the other hand Corbyn's intent is to destroy the labour party as we know it and to use its hollowed out shell do destroy our country and all it has stood for for decades if not centuries and give succour to our enemies, the enemies of peace and democracy. Unlike some the CDS appears not to be a traitor.
Well said sir
It was about the most histrionic bundle of meaningless clichés posted here all week.
Maria Eagle should be sacked. The fact that she disagrees with Corbyn is a party matter. Regardless, a serving Military Officer should not comment on government or opposition policy. They should serve the government of the day.
Would it have been alright for a British General to go TV and say he did not agree with the invasion of Iraq ?
I believe senior military officers wanted a clarification on the legal aspects on the bombing of Syria [ which was voted down ]. However, that was not done in the glare of the media.
I remember in 1983 some retired generals spoke to the media. Fair enough. They were not serving then.
What happened today is very unfortunate. A line has been crossed.
Stone me. I agree, mostly, with Surbiton. I think I need to go and lie down.
Thirded. A truly disgraceful and truly worrying intervention. Is this the same guy who said the army was likely to rebel if Corbyn got in?
I am not sure even the government would like this. They may privately think it was a good idea well before the next election to air the military view straight from the horse's mouth, but more sensible heads will not find this acceptable.
I don't suppose we'll ever know, but personally I think it comes straight from Cameron's inner circle.
Maria Eagle should be sacked. The fact that she disagrees with Corbyn is a party matter. Regardless, a serving Military Officer should not comment on government or opposition policy. They should serve the government of the day.
Would it have been alright for a British General to go TV and say he did not agree with the invasion of Iraq ?
I believe senior military officers wanted a clarification on the legal aspects on the bombing of Syria [ which was voted down ]. However, that was not done in the glare of the media.
I remember in 1983 some retired generals spoke to the media. Fair enough. They were not serving then.
What happened today is very unfortunate. A line has been crossed.
Stone me. I agree, mostly, with Surbiton. I think I need to go and lie down.
I disagree. I think if someone is proposing a policy that the defence chiefs think seriously endangers the defence of the realm, they have a moral responsibility to say something. It is a similar manner to them criticising defence cuts. This was said in the most tentative way possible, and Corbyn is a fool to pick a fight with them rather than just letting it slide.
The General is in the wrong with this one, no doubt about it. I would be very disappointed if No 10 had any prior knowledge of this and did not prevent it.
ScottP .... Re war memorials.(at 2.49) Yes you usually see a great disproportion between losses. However some villages will have fewer WW1 names in proportion. This is because at the beginning of the WW1 certain groups joined up en mass from the same area into the same unit. Later we had conscription and recruits were distributed more evenly. In WW1 we were involved in a continental wide mass war for 4 solid years. We were only involved in continental warfare for about 1 year in WW2. During that time our ground losses were comparable.
...
Mr. Path, I don't think I have ever seen a local war memorial on which the number of people from WW2 was larger than the number from WW1. I suppose in theory one should exist but if there is one I should be interested to hear of it.
You second point is however well made. I shall get back on a hobbyhorse of mine and state that an infantryman in the Normandy campaign in 1944 was more likely to suffer death or wounds than an infantryman in the Somme campaign of 1916.
Possibly a comparison could be made with the RAF and particularly Bomber Command.
Bomber command's casualties were indeed shocking.
I think German U boat crews had a pretty astonishing casualty rate too.
I suspect that many of those weakened by injury in WW1 would have been at greater risk of falling to the Spanish Flu epidemic that claimed five times the number of dead in the Great War itself.
Mr MM, I don't think that was true. The Spanish flu did the greatest damage to the young, healthy and fit, hence it caused many deaths in military camps and boarding schools in the US, where such populations were found in highest density. This is because it bound deep in the lungs and caused a cytokine storm - which is an over-reaction of the immune system and is probably what killed the healthier patients.
"An unusual feature of this pandemic was that it mostly killed young adults. In 1918–1919, 99% of pandemic influenza deaths in the US occurred in people under 65, and nearly half in young adults 20 to 40 years old" wikipedia
I can't find the citation, but earlier reading of this I found some reference to the mortality rate in immuno-compromised persons was considerably lower.
But how foolish is Corbyn to get involved in this spat, on remembrance Sunday? Very foolish indeed I think. And his laughable rendition of the national anthem won't have helped either.
He gets criticised for not singing the national anthem and for singing the anthem.
These debates on politics and national security have given me an idea. I'm going to try and write a pot-boiler about a group of old-fashioned establishment figures who plot to assassinate a new libertarian Prime minister who has a background in high finance and decides he wants the country to declare neutrality, pull out of Europe and NATO and be entirely mercenary towards the rest of the world. I'm not sure what the trigger might be, perhaps handing over control of the country's ultra-sensitive nuclear industry to a hostile major foreign power with a terrible human rights record.
Anyway the mixture of (largely public school) generals, spooks and judges conclude they need to save the country from itself.
Just seen corbyns response- it was well argued I thought. Not one to praise Corbyn but was right to criticise.
His was the best (is it a competition?) card left at the Cenotaph also.
On topic of generals, who are a long way from having covered themselves in glory these past 12 years, I agree with his sentiments (who doesn't?) but also agree perhaps he should not have voiced them as he did. Is it any different from saying we should retain a heavy armoured capability? Surely the job of the generals is to speak truth to power.
Perhaps (I haven't seen the full interview) he meant that if the Labour Party got elected on a platform of Trident renewal then it would be dangerous and wrong for any PM to be able to unilaterally decide not to authorise a strike. And he would be right about that also.
The difficulty is, of course, that the Labour Party's position is pro-trident renewal so that makes his concern understandable.
Corbyn has made a mistake as this will only alert the attention of many generally politically unaware people to his defence policies and his related attitudes.
Absolutely and the timing is all wrong
Yes, a mistake in terms of PR. That doesn't change the fact that the General really shouldn't have made those comments.
Mr. Jessop, Mr. Llama, I do apologise, I somehow managed to miss both your replies to me on the previous thread.
Another Kickstarter perhaps worth considering is Kingdom Come: Deliverance. Think of Elder Scrolls, but set in the real world, in a condensed but generally realistic map of Bohemia several hundred years ago. The layered armour system appears the best since Dragon's Dogma, and although the release has been pushed back (2016 for consoles, I think) it looks intriguing.
Mr. Llama, I share you dislike of canine demise in videogames (I never had a Dawnguard husky as a companion for that reason), but Dogmeat [and other companions] cannot die in combat. They can, I think, get temporarily wounded and put out of the fight for a little while, but they can't actually get killed in combat.
I don't understand this don't-kill-pets meme, especially in books and games where innocent humans die.
As I've said in the past, I dabble unprofessionally with writing. In one series, a cat is a minor character: she is the main character's pet (called Kaplan, which is Turkish for Tiger). In the third book, I fully intend to kill the cat off as a plot device. Worse, it is not an accidental death, but a cold-blooded murder.
Yet Mrs J says that is a really bad idea that will turn readers off. Yet she has never objected when I've killed off human characters in the past ...
(As an aside, 'Aslan' is Turkish for Lion).
Mrs Jessop is clearly a very sensible lady. Should your book series be published I shall of course buy it but now I know the heroine is to be killed off ( a cat can never be a minor character) in the third volume I shall never read it. Killing good animals in a story is a sure fire turn off.
A great mate of mine who has made a very nice living as a script writer was some years ago working on a script for an American producer who, it turned out, was pushing the drafts out to a sort of large focus group. In the course of the story development he had a nice doggie shot by the hero. As a story device it worked; as a turn off it worked even more. He got hate mail from all over, had the internet been as developed an popular as it is now, "Don't shoot the dog" would have been a twitter sensation and, probably, my mate would never have worked again.
Murder the main human in a story and few people will bat an eyelid but murder their cat or dog and the public will not like it.
Kill the cat (lots of cats really) in a Red Wedding-type bloodbath.
And, don't forget, James Herbert got away with rats devouring a live baby.
But how foolish is Corbyn to get involved in this spat, on remembrance Sunday? Very foolish indeed I think. And his laughable rendition of the national anthem won't have helped either.
He gets criticised for not singing the national anthem and for singing the anthem.
He was criticised for singing it poorly, not for singing it
Corbyn has made a mistake as this will only alert the attention of many generally politically unaware people to his defence policies and his related attitudes.
Absolutely and the timing is all wrong
Yes, a mistake in terms of PR. That doesn't change the fact that the General really shouldn't have made those comments.
And Eagle should not have defended his right to make them.
Maria Eagle should be sacked. The fact that she disagrees with Corbyn is a party matter. Regardless, a serving Military Officer should not comment on government or opposition policy. They should serve the government of the day.
Would it have been alright for a British General to go TV and say he did not agree with the invasion of Iraq ?
I believe senior military officers wanted a clarification on the legal aspects on the bombing of Syria [ which was voted down ]. However, that was not done in the glare of the media.
I remember in 1983 some retired generals spoke to the media. Fair enough. They were not serving then.
What happened today is very unfortunate. A line has been crossed.
Stone me. I agree, mostly, with Surbiton. I think I need to go and lie down.
I also agree. I do wonder whether our left leaning friends would be so bothered when a public sector employee lays into the tories.
Corbyn has made a mistake as this will only alert the attention of many generally politically unaware people to his defence policies and his related attitudes.
Absolutely and the timing is all wrong
Yes, a mistake in terms of PR. That doesn't change the fact that the General really shouldn't have made those comments.
And Eagle should not have defended his right to make them.
Have the Tories commented at all?
Yeh, it was almost as if she was looking for a reason to undermine him. The Tories shouldn't respond, unless it is to say that Generals should stay out of politics.
Mr. Jessop, Mr. Llama, I do apologise, I somehow managed to miss both your replies to me on the previous thread.
Another Kickstarter perhaps worth considering is Kingdom Come: Deliverance. Think of Elder Scrolls, but set in the real world, in a condensed but generally realistic map of Bohemia several hundred years ago. The layered armour system appears the best since Dragon's Dogma, and although the release has been pushed back (2016 for consoles, I think) it looks intriguing.
Mr. Llama, I share you dislike of canine demise in videogames (I never had a Dawnguard husky as a companion for that reason), but Dogmeat [and other companions] cannot die in combat. They can, I think, get temporarily wounded and put out of the fight for a little while, but they can't actually get killed in combat.
I don't understand this don't-kill-pets meme, especially in books and games where innocent humans die.
As I've said in the past, I dabble unprofessionally with writing. In one series, a cat is a minor character: she is the main character's pet (called Kaplan, which is Turkish for Tiger). In the third book, I fully intend to kill the cat off as a plot device. Worse, it is not an accidental death, but a cold-blooded murder.
Yet Mrs J says that is a really bad idea that will turn readers off. Yet she has never objected when I've killed off human characters in the past ...
(As an aside, 'Aslan' is Turkish for Lion).
Mrs Jessop is clearly a very sensible lady. Should your book series be published I shall of course buy it but now I know the heroine is to be killed off ( a cat can never be a minor character) in the third volume I shall never read it. Killing good animals in a story is a sure fire turn off.
A great mate of mine who has made a very nice living as a script writer was some years ago working on a script for an American producer who, it turned out, was pushing the drafts out to a sort of large focus group. In the course of the story development he had a nice doggie shot by the hero. As a story device it worked; as a turn off it worked even more. He got hate mail from all over, had the internet been as developed an popular as it is now, "Don't shoot the dog" would have been a twitter sensation and, probably, my mate would never have worked again.
Murder the main human in a story and few people will bat an eyelid but murder their cat or dog and the public will not like it.
Kill the cat (lots of cats really) in a Red Wedding-type bloodbath.
And, don't forget, James Herbert got away with rats devouring a live baby.
Maria Eagle should be sacked. The fact that she disagrees with Corbyn is a party matter. Regardless, a serving Military Officer should not comment on government or opposition policy. They should serve the government of the day.
Would it have been alright for a British General to go TV and say he did not agree with the invasion of Iraq ?
I believe senior military officers wanted a clarification on the legal aspects on the bombing of Syria [ which was voted down ]. However, that was not done in the glare of the media.
I remember in 1983 some retired generals spoke to the media. Fair enough. They were not serving then.
What happened today is very unfortunate. A line has been crossed.
Stone me. I agree, mostly, with Surbiton. I think I need to go and lie down.
I also agree. I do wonder whether our left leaning friends would be so bothered when a public sector employee lays into the tories.
Maria Eagle busy sporting her latest look. All of a sudden she looks like John Prescott. Probably wants to get a refund I guess. Nevertheless... Perhaps.... What do you think?...
Just seen corbyns response- it was well argued I thought. Not one to praise Corbyn but was right to criticise.
Surely the job of the generals is to speak truth to power.
Not in a democracy.
In 2003 and 2006 the generals were keen to get involved. They shouldn't have been but a combination of use-it-or-lose-it empire-building, and not wanting to say no to the politicians who were determined to participate, got us to where we are today in both Iraq and Afghan.
Leaving aside the empire building, had they spoken truth to power at that time (and they have roundly and IMO rightly been criticised for not doing so), we might not have found ourselves in the situation a) we did in theatre; and b) we do now.
The problem Corbyn has is that by entering this controversy on Remembrance Day with the military it is now highlighting on the media and drawing the public's attention many of whom may well now agree with the General who may not even have been aware of Corbyn's policy
Corbyn has made a mistake as this will only alert the attention of many generally politically unaware people to his defence policies and his related attitudes.
Absolutely and the timing is all wrong
Yes, a mistake in terms of PR. That doesn't change the fact that the General really shouldn't have made those comments.
And Eagle should not have defended his right to make them.
Have the Tories commented at all?
Yeh, it was almost as if she was looking for a reason to undermine him. The Tories shouldn't respond, unless it is to say that Generals should stay out of politics.
And the General concerned should be getting a bollocking from their superiors.
Just seen corbyns response- it was well argued I thought. Not one to praise Corbyn but was right to criticise.
His was the best (is it a competition?) card left at the Cenotaph also.
On topic of generals, who are a long way from having covered themselves in glory these past 12 years, I agree with his sentiments (who doesn't?) but also agree perhaps he should not have voiced them as he did. Is it any different from saying we should retain a heavy armoured capability? Surely the job of the generals is to speak truth to power.
Perhaps (I haven't seen the full interview) he meant that if the Labour Party got elected on a platform of Trident renewal then it would be dangerous and wrong for any PM to be able to unilaterally decide not to authorise a strike. And he would be right about that also.
The difficulty is, of course, that the Labour Party's position is pro-trident renewal so that makes his concern understandable.
I don't see any reason why any senior public servant shouldn't make comment about how he/she believes their area of expertise should be best run, with the proviso that they accept that whatever their advice, the government of the day makes the decision and is accountable for it. A Select Committee would (or should) certainly expect a permanent secretary, chief executive or general or admiral to know what hardware, personnel, cash and other resources would be needed to implement the government's policy and how best to go about it. They would also expect answers on why Britain needs the things they advise it does.
ScottP .... Re war memorials.(at 2.49) Yes you usually see a great disproportion between losses. However some villages will have fewer WW1 names in proportion. This is because at the beginning of the WW1 certain groups joined up en mass from the same area into the same unit. Later we had conscription and recruits were distributed more evenly. In WW1 we were involved in a continental wide mass war for 4 solid years. We were only involved in continental warfare for about 1 year in WW2. During that time our ground losses were comparable.
...
Mr. Path, I don't think I have ever seen a local war memorial on which the number of people from WW2 was larger than the number from WW1. I suppose in theory one should exist but if there is one I should be interested to hear of it.
You second point is however well made. I shall get back on a hobbyhorse of mine and state that an infantryman in the Normandy campaign in 1944 was more likely to suffer death or wounds than an infantryman in the Somme campaign of 1916.
Possibly a comparison could be made with the RAF and particularly Bomber Command.
Bomber command's casualties were indeed shocking.
I think German U boat crews had a pretty astonishing casualty rate too.
Yes, it was virtually a commitment to suicide at one point to be in a U boat. Mr Llama makes a very valid point about the normady campaign and it can be carried forward to the whole of the NW Europe campaign. I may have misremembered the figures but our average rate of attrition on the western front was 100 dead a day. I believe the comparable figure for me Europe was 80. I do not stand by these half remembered figures but the general drift is fair. It was no cake walk liberating Europe, especially for those at the sharp end.
Just seen corbyns response- it was well argued I thought. Not one to praise Corbyn but was right to criticise.
His was the best (is it a competition?) card left at the Cenotaph also.
On topic of generals, who are a long way from having covered themselves in glory these past 12 years, I agree with his sentiments (who doesn't?) but also agree perhaps he should not have voiced them as he did. Is it any different from saying we should retain a heavy armoured capability? Surely the job of the generals is to speak truth to power.
Perhaps (I haven't seen the full interview) he meant that if the Labour Party got elected on a platform of Trident renewal then it would be dangerous and wrong for any PM to be able to unilaterally decide not to authorise a strike. And he would be right about that also.
The difficulty is, of course, that the Labour Party's position is pro-trident renewal so that makes his concern understandable.
I don't see any reason why any senior public servant shouldn't make comment about how he/she believes their area of expertise should be best run, with the proviso that they accept that whatever their advice, the government of the day makes the decision and is accountable for it. A Select Committee would (or should) certainly expect a permanent secretary, chief executive or general or admiral to know what hardware, personnel, cash and other resources would be needed to implement the government's policy and how best to go about it. They would also expect answers on why Britain needs the things they advise it does.
For me the test is whether the general could properly have expressed his views to a select committee if questioned. On this occasion I can't see he overstepped that mark. He expressed a view on military matters within his sphere of expertise.
On remembrance Sunday the thankful villages that lost no-one. I normally live near Over Kellet,which is a double thankful village,and the rest of my time in a WW1 thankful village in Cumbria. I did a WW1 tour of the Somme, and Ypres this year, it is incredibly moving.
"It is a matter of serious concern that the chief of the defence staff has today intervened directly in issues of political dispute. It is essential in a democracy that the military remains political neutral at all times," Mr Corbyn said.
"By publicly taking sides in current political arguments, Sir Nicholas Houghton has clearly breached that constitutional principle. Accordingly, I am writing to the defence secretary to ask him to take action to ensure that the neutrality of the armed forces is upheld."
The General ought to have been more guarded in his comments, but it would be odd if the CDS didn't have a view on the implications of Corbyn's policies. But convention is convention, and that is to remain silent.
If a soldier was interviewed on TV and said he thought his commander's orders were wrong, he would be disciplined pdq.
On the other hand Corbyn's intent is to destroy the labour party as we know it and to use its hollowed out shell do destroy our country and all it has stood for for decades if not centuries and give succour to our enemies, the enemies of peace and democracy. Unlike some the CDS appears not to be a traitor.
Well said sir
It was about the most histrionic bundle of meaningless clichés posted here all week.
And its only Sunday! It's up to the Labour Party to defend itself from the forces attacking it from within. I'm certainly not bother if Labouritea don't believe me.
Not sure if already posted but potentially quite significant.
Labour MPs Mike Gapes and Ronnie Campbell were interviewed together by Andrew Neil on Friday's Daily Politics re Labour MPs being at odds with Labour members.
They both said they had seen huge increases in the number of members in their constituencies - one of them gave the number 600.
They both said they had contacted all their new members more than once by email etc.
Now, the interesting bit - they both said they had hardly heard anything at all back from their new members - they had both had no more than a handful of responses and only tiny numbers of them had turned up to any events / made themselves available for leafleting etc.
They both seemed very perplexed by the situation - as if all these people have simply vanished into thin air.
Comments
As I've said in the past, I dabble unprofessionally with writing. In one series, a cat is a minor character: she is the main character's pet (called Kaplan, which is Turkish for Tiger). In the third book, I fully intend to kill the cat off as a plot device. Worse, it is not an accidental death, but a cold-blooded murder.
Yet Mrs J says that is a really bad idea that will turn readers off. Yet she has never objected when I've killed off human characters in the past ...
(As an aside, 'Aslan' is Turkish for Lion).
Our village has a booklet that can be bought that gives a brief summary of both wars and where possible lists the action and event behind every name on the memorial.
Also, this extends to all companions, whether, human, canine, robot or otherwise.
Your wife is wise. Killing or torturing humans is fine. But killing cats and dogs (especially) is something you need to be very careful about.
I did actually know that, as Gibbon mentions Alp Arslan (think he succeeded Toghrul Beg as an early Seljuk Sultan). It's a good spot of info to know. Didn't know about Kaplan, though.
If it does become a party within a party that is intent on taking over Labour, there would be a danger to its future.
However there has always been a history of disagreement over nuclear Unilateral disarmament from the 50s to the 80s.
In the 80s , I totally disagreed with unilateral disamament.
However , I do believe it needs to be discussed again in 2015.
The leader of the Armed Services should not involve hiself in a public party policy discussion. He can raise his views privatley to the PM or leaders of political parties.
A great mate of mine who has made a very nice living as a script writer was some years ago working on a script for an American producer who, it turned out, was pushing the drafts out to a sort of large focus group. In the course of the story development he had a nice doggie shot by the hero. As a story device it worked; as a turn off it worked even more. He got hate mail from all over, had the internet been as developed an popular as it is now, "Don't shoot the dog" would have been a twitter sensation and, probably, my mate would never have worked again.
Murder the main human in a story and few people will bat an eyelid but murder their cat or dog and the public will not like it.
Would it have been alright for a British General to go TV and say he did not agree with the invasion of Iraq ?
I believe senior military officers wanted a clarification on the legal aspects on the bombing of Syria [ which was voted down ]. However, that was not done in the glare of the media.
I remember in 1983 some retired generals spoke to the media. Fair enough. They were not serving then.
What happened today is very unfortunate. A line has been crossed.
Whilst I share the general's concerns, he's a senior military man and it is not his job (or his right) to publicly make political statements.
It is 'just' a convention (though some on the left cheering the Lords voting down a finance matter may wish to reflect on this), but it's a critically important one.
I criticised Sir Iain Blair when he was a cheerleader for Labour's authoritarian bullshit, and this is a similar situation. The police and military should not be politicised.
Eagle should be sacked, but she won't be for two reasons (1) Corbyn doesn't do discipline (cf Simon Danczuk) and (2) if she was sacked, who on earth would he replace her with? Practically nobody is willing to serve in the shadow cabinet as it is. Clive Lewis would have to be promoted, and given his penchant for crazy remarks, that would likely be a disaster.
It is the fact that she supported a serving General to question party political policy is my point. If Labour were to end up with a compromise on having two Trident submarines and some generals criticise that, she would be in no position to deflect that as she had already sanctioned such an intervention.
The Tories have also reduced Army strength from 120000 to 84000 with perhaps more to come. Should the Army Chief publicly criticise that ? They can do cleverly by nods and winks but that is different to a full frontal attack.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-34759343
Is it as bad if I remove the cat from the stories, and she never exists?
I must admit that I find it a strange attitude to have. A cat's death is abhorrent and will stop people reading, yet an innocent human's murder is fine. I find it hard to understand, and perhaps somewhat immoral. That might not be the best word ...
I read one book a few years ago by an American author (I *think* it was the Bones lady). In the book, she comes home to find her cat has been murdered and gutted. Yet a few chapters later her cat turned up: it was another cat that someone had found dead and gutted, and placed in her flat after taking her cat.
It was the biggest, most ridiculous cop-out ever.
I almost rewrote the entire end of Journey to Altmortis to up the death toll, but decided to leave it as is.
Any votes over the quota are declared surplus and go to the next preference.
Have I understood this aright? If a different set of votes were counted first in order to reach the quota, a different candidate could have been elected thanks to the second-preferences.
Something delightfully random in there!
How do they decide which votes to count first and which to count later?
Even somebody so muddle-headed as Angela would surely not have made so simple a mistake!
@runnymede don't you think that on the day when we remember the millions of men who died in defence of democracy, it is entirely appropriate to criticise somebody who, doubtless with the best of motives, has damaged a key part of it? I never thought I'd hear myself say it, but I agree with Corbyn on this and think his response, and the timing of it, is entirely appropriate.
The really stupid thing was a General making such a remark, especially on such a day.
https://twitter.com/BritishVision/status/662933675277987841
To stop the politicians fucking things up.
I think German U boat crews had a pretty astonishing casualty rate too.
"An unusual feature of this pandemic was that it mostly killed young adults. In 1918–1919, 99% of pandemic influenza deaths in the US occurred in people under 65, and nearly half in young adults 20 to 40 years old" wikipedia
I can't find the citation, but earlier reading of this I found some reference to the mortality rate in immuno-compromised persons was considerably lower.
Anyway the mixture of (largely public school) generals, spooks and judges conclude they need to save the country from itself.
On topic of generals, who are a long way from having covered themselves in glory these past 12 years, I agree with his sentiments (who doesn't?) but also agree perhaps he should not have voiced them as he did. Is it any different from saying we should retain a heavy armoured capability? Surely the job of the generals is to speak truth to power.
Perhaps (I haven't seen the full interview) he meant that if the Labour Party got elected on a platform of Trident renewal then it would be dangerous and wrong for any PM to be able to unilaterally decide not to authorise a strike. And he would be right about that also.
The difficulty is, of course, that the Labour Party's position is pro-trident renewal so that makes his concern understandable.
And, don't forget, James Herbert got away with rats devouring a live baby.
Have the Tories commented at all?
@NoBSpolitics @MikeGapes @cardifflegend Interestingly, one country which did give up nukes has had territory annexed. By Russia. #Ukraine
Leaving aside the empire building, had they spoken truth to power at that time (and they have roundly and IMO rightly been criticised for not doing so), we might not have found ourselves in the situation a) we did in theatre; and b) we do now.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/496097d0-8324-11e5-8e80-1574112844fd.html
Eagle made a strange move in defending them.
Corbyn did badly to highlight them.
The Deterrent is used every second of every day. Right up until the point where you publicly proclaim you would never push the button...
Mr Llama makes a very valid point about the normady campaign and it can be carried forward to the whole of the NW Europe campaign. I may have misremembered the figures but our average rate of attrition on the western front was 100 dead a day. I believe the comparable figure for me Europe was 80. I do not stand by these half remembered figures but the general drift is fair.
It was no cake walk liberating Europe, especially for those at the sharp end.
Probably both.
i.newsrt.co.uk/upload/news/large/13/04/4276438399.jpg
(Edit: it is of course Bernard Cribbins to put you all out of your misery...spooky, huh?)
I have no problem with this intervention either:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/08/nhs-chairman-funding-crisis-collapse
I did a WW1 tour of the Somme, and Ypres this year, it is incredibly moving.
It's up to the Labour Party to defend itself from the forces attacking it from within. I'm certainly not bother if Labouritea don't believe me.
Labour MPs Mike Gapes and Ronnie Campbell were interviewed together by Andrew Neil on Friday's Daily Politics re Labour MPs being at odds with Labour members.
They both said they had seen huge increases in the number of members in their constituencies - one of them gave the number 600.
They both said they had contacted all their new members more than once by email etc.
Now, the interesting bit - they both said they had hardly heard anything at all back from their new members - they had both had no more than a handful of responses and only tiny numbers of them had turned up to any events / made themselves available for leafleting etc.
They both seemed very perplexed by the situation - as if all these people have simply vanished into thin air.